Of Undisturbed Retirement

A friend of mine, a senior civil servant working at the heart of government, was talking to me shortly after the introduction of the Freedom of Information Act. Each meeting he had attended that week had been preceded by an anguished discussion about how the proceedings were to be organised in order to avoid disclosure. The law had changed, he remarked, but the culture of secrecy remained in place.

This phenomenon, legislated change but cultural conservatism, is common. We are now faced, across society as a whole, with a major change for which we are culturally ill-prepared - the removal of the statutory retirement age. Rather than the situation hitherto, when the option was available to compulsorily retire employees at 65, employees may determine to continue their employment and (with the exception of certain highly limited situations) employers cannot, within the law, do anything about it. I do not intend here to debate the merits or demerits of this change. It is the law.

For many types of employment this is not particularly significant. Few employees wish to remain at work once they have been able to secure adequate financial provision for their retirement (this point may, of course, be delayed by larger demographic changes). The career profiles of many employees are not significantly differentiated by age, their work is tightly defined by their job and though they gain experience, the content of what they do remains more or less constant. Academics are in this regard different. Many view their employment as a vocation more than a job. They are hooked on research, on the intelligent company of their colleagues and on the stimulation of teaching smart young people. Their work, as essentially creative scholars, is very individual and particular, changing in form and content across a professional life.  A relatively larger proportion of them are likely to want to continue to do the job they profess to love, because they love to profess.

Few universities are prepared for this. Formally, yes, the policies and processes may be in place, but culturally and managerially, I have doubts. Age discrimination, seldom overt and often unintended or unconscious, is probably more of a problem for the sector than race or gender (and we still have problems with these).

While we have become much better at managing the start of academic careers we are poor at handling other stages. Across the UK, for example, we have any number of fellowships, early career schemes and leadership development programmes. By contrast we have almost no provision for mid or late career scientists. Those who are older are expected to, essentially, shift for themselves. Older academics are basically sorted into two very rough piles: distinguished elder or useless has-been, neither of which are essentially requiring of much support.

If we are to respond appropriately to the legal changes we must change both culture and management practice. We must help individuals shape their careers across a working life. We must develop new roles and models of how valued contributions can be made. We must develop a sensitive performance management and incentives scheme that works with individuals to ensure that they remain motivated to contribute to the institution. We must look at flexible models by which academics can continue work on a part-time or occasional basis rather than being compelled to remain full-time in order to retain their employment rights.